alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

Filed 8/30/13 P. v. Charter CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MICHAEL CHARTER,

Defendant and Appellant.

C073364

(Super. Ct. No. 13F01433)

This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). 

Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we affirm the judgment.

We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of 

the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
2

BACKGROUND

Because this matter was resolved by plea the facts are taken from the stated factual 

basis. 

Between February 28, 2013 and March 1, 2013, defendant willfully and 

unlawfully took the victim’s 1990 Honda Accord without the victim’s permission and 

with the intent to permanently deprive him of title and possession. 

A felony complaint charged defendant with vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, 

subd. (a)), receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)) and misdemeanor 

possession of burglary tools (Pen. Code, § 466). Defendant pleaded no contest to the 

auto theft charge and the remaining counts were dismissed. The trial court granted 

defendant probation for a period of five years conditioned on serving 270 days in county 

jail, with credit for time served of six days. The trial court ordered defendant to pay a 

$280 restitution fund fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4), a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. 

Code, § 70373), a $40 court security fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), and a $25 

urinalysis testing fee. The trial court reserved jurisdiction on the issue of direct victim 

restitution. The trial court imposed and the defendant accepted additional terms and 

conditions of probation, as stated in the probation report. Defendant appeals. He did not 

obtain a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5.) 

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening 

brief setting forth the facts of the case and, pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, 

requesting the court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable 

issues on appeal. Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental 

brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have 

elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant. We have undertaken 

an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, and we find no arguable error that 

would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. 
3

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

 MURRAY , J.

We concur:

 HULL , Acting P. J.

 MAURO , J.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. 23-0725

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

BOBBY FRANCIS LOWRY,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including June 24, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 15 2024

05/15/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0725
S 10-100428-048 


VlllACiEOF 


ROSEMONT 


April 19,2010 

The Honorable Raymond H. LaHood 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Docket DOTMOST 201O~ 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

Thank you forthe opportunity to express our support for the application for 

antitrust immunity and proposed joint business agreement filed by 

American Airlines and Japan Airlines. The proposed alJiance between these 

two airlines is vital for the oneworld Alliance to compete effectively with 

the Star and Sky Team Alliances. This increased alliance competition wiH, 

in turn, enhance the benefits of the Department ofTransportation's Open 

Skies policy - first by solidifYing U.S.MJapan Open Skies, then by serving as 

a foundation for further liberalization across Asia. 

After'a thorough review, we encourage the Department of Transportation to 

'd:ppro'\fe ltiis'application as it would enable these oneworld Alliance airlines 

to work closely together to deliver highly competitive air transportation 

services. Approval for AAIJAL Alliance will have a positive impact on air 

travel by offering customer<:; more service, scheduling and pricing options 

and will help to ensure that customers continue to benefit from the 

competition afforded by three competitive air alliances. 

We respectfully urge you to quicklJ' apprO'\le tillS application. Thank you for 

your consideration ofthis request. 

" . 

' " .,' .... , 

.

, 

. • Of I '., .; ~ • .: , ># 1 > .:, ' ' 

... ! ~. .. . . 

t \, .. 

, . 9501 West Devon Avenue 

Rosemont. 11111'lO1$ 60018 

Pnone 847 825-4404 

Fax 647 696-2717
Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Dennis J.
Curtin, Senior Vice President - Chief Financial Officer of E-Z-EM, Inc. (the
Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: 1.
the Annual
  Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended June 3, 2006
  (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
  of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and2.
the
  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date:
August 17, 2006

/s/
  Dennis J. CurtinDennis
  J. Curtin, Senior VicePresident
  - Chief Financial Officer -112-
EXHIBIT 23.1  
  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-156502, 333-163321, 333-136117, 333-126117, 333-130338, and 333-171179), and Form S-8 (No. 333-163823, 333-144862, 333-124626, and 333-138674) of Cadiz Inc. of our reportdated March 16, 2011 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.
 
  PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
 Los Angeles, California
 March 16, 2011
ACCEPTED

03-15-00105-CR

6902540

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

9/14/2015 9:40:56 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

NO. 0 3 - 1£ -()0 I u..L-C,K 

THE COURT OF APPEALS 

For the Third District at Austin, Texas 

State ofTcxas Vs. Justin Murphy 

APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION 

On Appeal from an order denying relief on an Application for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus from the County Court at Law Number 3 

TO THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS, 

Adam T. King Blackwell Reposa 

SBN 24040163 

ll 06 San Antonio 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Tel: (512) 476-0444 

Fax: (512) 478-1114 

Attorney for Defendant 

COMES NOW Justin Murphy, Appellant and moves this Court to Grant an extension of time to 

file brief and in support of shows the following. 

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 9/14/2015 9:40:56 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
l. Justin Murphy has a brief due on September 14,2015. 

2. Counsel has not had any previous extensions granted. 

3. A previous motion for extension was filed, this cause was dismissed, and then later 

reinstated. 

4. Counsel has tried 5 separate jury trials in the time the reinstated appeal has been 

pending and has not had time to complete the brief. 

5. This motion is not made for delay, but that justice may be Done. 

Counsel requests a 45 day extension. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Adam T. King Blackwell Reposa 

SBN 24040163 

ll 06 San Antonio 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Tel: (512) 476-0444 

Fax: (512) 478-1114 

By ~ 7fllt? 

Adam T. Kiog:ackwOll Reposa 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on the Travis County Attorney's 

Office via Hand Delivery on this, the 14th day of September, 20 15. 

By: __ c=_/ __ z_,__ ( _J ---'------ Adam T. King Blackwell Reposa 

Attorney for Justin Murphy
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 27, 2015

p0520 

# Order

Clerk May 27, 2015

151255

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 151255

COA: 315591

Macomb CC: 2011

- 003482

- FH

LOIS BUTLER

- JACKSON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 6, 2014

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to t his Court that the

case of People v Hartwick (Docket No. 148444) is pending on appeal before this Court

and that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for

leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the

decision in that case.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7736

DAVIS MOSES LEUDVICK, Petitioner - Appellant,

versus ROY W. CHERRY, Superintendent, Hampton Roads Regional Jail, Portsmouth, Virginia; WARREN A. LEWIS, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service; JAMES ZIGLER, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service; JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-1107-AM) Submitted: July 21, 2004 Decided: August 24, 2004 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Davis Moses Leudvick, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The district court, by order of June 1, 2004, again dismissed the action without prejudice, citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Leudvick has not noted an appeal from that order. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Davis Moses Leudvick appeals the district court’s order of October 23, 2003, dismissing his petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). After the district court dismissed Leudvick’s petition for failure to inform the court of a new address, Leudvick filed a notice of appeal. He subsequently filed a document tending to show that he did not have a new address. The district court construed this document as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) and issued an order indicating its inclination to grant the motion. SeeFobian v. Storage Tech. Corp. , 164 F.3d 887, 891 (4th Cir. 1999). This Court remanded for the limited purpose of considering the merits of Leudvick’s motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). See Fobian , 164 F.3d at 892. On remand, the district court entered an order vacating the October 23, 2003, order of dismissal, and reopened the action. * Because the order on appeal has been vacated, this appeal is now moot. Mellen v. Bunting , 327 F.3d 355, 363-64 (4th Cir. 2003) (“When a case has become moot after the entry of the district court’s judgment, an appellate court no longer has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.”), cert. denied , 124 S. Ct. 1750 (2004). Therefore, we dismiss the appeal as moot. We deny Leudvick’s- 3 - motion for appointment of counsel, and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
----- F o r wa r ded b y B r i an S h r a g e r / R T P / U S E PA

/ U S on 02 / 18 / 2011 03 : 10 PM

-----

F r o m: " Higgi n s , Co r t n e y " < Co r t ne y _Hi g gin s @ o m b

. eop

. go v> T o: Robe r t J W a y land / R T P / U S E PA / U S @ EP A
, T ho m as G illi s / DC / U SE P A

/ U S @ E P A
, Br ian S h r age r / R T P / U S EP A

/ U S @ EP A
, J im E dding e r / R T P / U S E PA

/ U S @ EPA Da t e: 02 / 02 / 2011 11 : 51 AM S ubje c t: F W : E

. O

. 1 2 866 M e e t i ng o n B oi l e r MA CT

Hi all, Con s i s t en t w i t h ou r e x e c u t i v e o r de r , a t t a c he d a r e t he handou t s f r o m t he E O 1286 6 m ee t ing y e s t e r da y

. P l e a s e l e t m e k n ow i f y ou ha v e a ny que s t ion s.
Rega r d s, Co r t ney

----- O r i g inal A ppoin t m en t

- - --- F r o m : E c ho l s , M abel E. S en t : T u e s d a y , J anua ry 25
, 2 0 11 1 2 : 3 4 PM T o : E c h ol s , M abel E

. ; Ne y land
, K e v i n F

. ; M a n c i ni
, Do m in i c J

. ; Higg i n s, Co r t ne y ; Le e , A m a nda I .; M a c Neil
, J ohn S .; Ra ck o ff

, J ona t han E .; t s i r igo t i s

. p e t e r @ epa m ail

. epa

. go v; w a y l and

. r obe r t j @ ep a m a il

. epa

. go v; gil l i s

. t ho m a s @ e p a

. g o v; K e ohane
, Na t h a niel ; L e v in s on , Ar i k ; P a t el, M ani s ha ; U t e c h
, Dan G. S ubje c t: E

. O

. 12866 M ee t ing on B o i le r MA CT W h en : T ue s da y , F e b r ua ry 0 1
, 2011 1 : 00 P M

- 1 : 30 P M ( U T C

- 0 5 : 0 0 ) E a s t e rn T i m e ( U S & Canad a ). W h e r e : 101 0 3 N E OB

W h en : T ue s da y , F e b r ua ry 0 1
, 2011 1 : 00 P M

- 1 : 30 P M ( U T C

- 0 5 : 0 0 ) E a s t e rn T i m e ( U S & Canad a ). W h e r e : 101 0 3 N E OB

No t e : T he G M T o f f s e t abo v e doe s no t r e f le c t d a y l igh t s a v in g t i me ad j u s t m en t s.

*

~ *

~ *

~ *

~ *

~ *

~ *

~ *

~ * ~*
<Page>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

    We consent to the inclusion in this 2001 Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Lehman Brothers Inc. (the "Company") of our report dated January 4, 2002.

    We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements and Post Effective Amendments on Form S-3 File Nos. 333-08319 and
333-51913 of the Company, and in the related Prospectuses, of our report dated
January 4, 2002, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of the
Company included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
November 30, 2001.

                                          ERNST & YOUNG LLP

New York, New York
February 28, 2002
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11** 
**- 7**  **273**

THOMAS MITCHELL STUTTS ,
Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v.
ROBERT M. STEVENSON, III, Warden of Broad River Correctional Institution , Respondent

- Appellee ,
and

STA TE OF SOUTH CAROLINA , Respondent

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson

. Jacquelyn Denise Austin , Magistrate Judge. ( 8 :11

- cv
- 00 191

- SB

- JDA )

Submitted : February 9 , 2012 Decided: February 14, 2012

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Thomas Mitchell Stutts , Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown , Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished o pinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Thomas Mitchell Stutts seeks to appeal the magistrate

judge’s order denying Stutts’s motion for an extension of time

. ∗

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28

U.S.C. § 1291 (200 6 ), and certain interlocutory and collateral

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (200 6 ); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.
Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 , 545

- 46 (1949). The

order Stutts seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

∗ It appears that the notice of appeal was incorrectly forwarded to this court as it was directed specifically to the district court judge who presided over the case when the notice of appeal was filed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of uWink, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB/A for the quarter ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Nolan K. Bushnell,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)      The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.


November 29, 2006                                    By: /s/ NOLAN K. BUSHNELL
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Nolan K. Bushnell
                                                         Chief Executive Officer
1



### Order filed September 14, 2015

In The 

### Court of Appeals

For The 

### First District of Texas

___________ NO. 01

- 15

- 00167

- CR

____________ JOSHUA JACOB PATTERS ON , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 240th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 11

- DCR

- 058778

ORDER2

The Reporter’s Record was filed on July 15, 2015. On August 20, 2015, appellant

filed a motion to order the filing of the trial exhibits. We grant the motion and issue the following order.
This court has determined, pursuant to T exas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5(f) and 34.6(g)(2), that it must inspect the original of all trial exhibits, including State’s Exhibit 70, a video
.
The exhibit clerk of the 240th District Court is directed to deliver to the Clerk of this court the original s of all trial exhibits, including State’s Exhibit 70, a video , on or before September 24 , 2015. The Clerk of this co urt is directed to receive, maintain, and keep safe th e s e original exhibit s ; to deliver them to the justices of this court for their inspection; and, upon completion of inspection, to return the original s of these trial exhibits, to the clerk of the 240th District Court.



### PER CURIAM
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


      In connection with the annual report of Circuit Research Labs, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Robert W. McMartin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
     for the periods presented.

                                       /s/ Robert W. McMartin
                                       ----------------------------
                                       Robert W. McMartin
                                       Chief Financial Officer
                                       Circuit Research Labs, Inc.
                                       April 30, 2004
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. § 1350), Michael M. Wick, M.D., Ph.D., the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Telik, Inc.
(the Company), and Cynthia M. Butitta, the Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge:

1. The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the
Periodic Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

2. The
information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

In Witness Whereof, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 7th day of May, 2009.



|                                     |  |  |  |                                                    
|------------------------------------ |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------
|                                     |  | 
|/s/ MICHAEL M. WICK                  |  |  |  | /s/ CYNTHIA M. BUTITTA                             
|Michael M. Wick, M.D., Ph.D.         |  |  |  | Cynthia M. Butitta                                 
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Telik, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q),
irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.